RE: supreme court ruling

["Harper, Georgia" <GHARPER@utsystem.edu>]

I've read the court's decision and have written a bit about it as it might
affect copyright in an article about a related case, Chavez v. Arte
Publico Press (a case that squarely addresses the issue in the copyright
context).

Please see 

<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/chavez.htm>
<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/chavez.htm> and
<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/unilia.htm>
<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/unilia.htm>

which goes into a lot of detail about university liability for the
wrongful acts of faculty members and includes a discussion of sovereign
immunity and the Florida Pre-paid case at the end.


Georgia Harper
University of Texas System
Office of General Counsel
Gharper@utsystem.edu <mailto:Gharper@utsystem.edu> 
512 499-4462 (voice) /4523 (fax)

Visit the Copyright Crash Course at
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm
<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm> 


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Rickerson, George [mailto:RickersonG@umsystem.edu]
		Sent:	Tuesday, July 27, 1999 9:31 PM
		To:	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
		Subject:	supreme court ruling


In the August 2 issue of Business Week, on page 74, there is an opinion
piece that discusses a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case
was Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board vs. College
Savings Bank.

According to the piece, the state of Florida, in responding to a patent
infringement suit by the bank, claimed that states are constitutionally
immune from federal intellectual-property laws under the doctrine of
sovreign immunity.  The high court agreed and ruled in favor of the state
of Florida.
			
The column goes on to state that the ruling may mean that states,
including all their subsidiary agencies such as universities and colleges,
have a free pass to ignore federal intellectual-property laws and can
freely copy copyrighted works, appropriate registered trademarks for their
own use and violate patents without fear of suit.

Has anyone read the court's decision?

		Thanks,
		George.